CdnSikhGirl

Never thought of it before but is it possible to put a parental block on things like YouTube??

Some have mentioned wanting access to online simran etc. And we rely on ones from gurdwaras etc. But I know there is online streaming audio kind of like the gamers use... That can be used for online conferences. Why not have a time (make it weekends so more could attend) and have some take initiative to start simran for Sikh Awareness, and we could all join in since it's streaming?? Each weekend maybe a different person could initiate and we could have different styles, I might even initiate sometime if I'm brave enough and do it with guitar... Someone else might start it with harmonium etc but since we could all hear each other we could interact live and do this together. of course we are in different time zones so it wouldn't be Amrit vela everywhere but I think it would work really well!!! Then we could share our different techniques and ways to do it and take turns participating in each other's simran.

Erm my intention again was not to get Ragmaala Ji's kacheras in a bunch! It was just to show the EFFECT that reading Charitropakhyan has on minds of men. That majority then come out of it with distrust and contempt towards us. Even if it was aimed at warning only about a small amount of women which Ragmaala Ji tried to say earlier but now he's saying that women in general ALL have some manipulative power over men. Which I don't think so. But the effect is still what matters. Did Guru Ji intend for his Singhs to use it to hold Singhnis in contempt, place restrictions on them, distrust them, etc? If so, does it show Guru Ji didn't care about us? Or was he even author in first place? As a woman who has NEVER done these things or would even dream of it, is it fair that Singhs distrust me and because of that give me less opportunities and generally look down on me because I'm female? I would never do those things, even before I found Sikhi. I consider sex to be a sacred spiritual act between a married couple. I was at 40, a virgin when I got married. Hard to believe for a westerner eh? When I was younger I 'dated' and was even pressurized to do it by guys but didn't. Guys saying oh it's nothing, I love you I promise I'll never leave you etc. Thank goodness I never listened to them!!! With their boyish charms and wiles and all!! LOL Many gullible girls have caved to their wiles u know!! But seriously I was a virgin when I recently got married. And was scared to death of the 'act' if you know what I mean. So to have Singhs look at me am with thoughts in their mind that I can't be trusted and that I'm inherently immoral and deceitful hurts... Anyway I was just showing why a lot of us are having issues with that particular part of DG and its not as simple of he wrote it or not. It's very complicated. Because to say he wrote it means he either didn't like us females thought lowly of us or just maybe didn't care about what would happen to us as result of this writing. so it's not an 'attack on DG' but rather trying to find out if some of DG was an attack on females. Ragmaala Ji illustrated it first he said it was only about certain women but now he admits he thinks all women are capable of these things. So has it affected his mind in how he thinks of us? It proves my point. And this is independent of the arguments about sexual content and pen names etc. Btw I'm not arguing I am typing this very calmly. I'd like genuine answers to to these questions.

You are missing what I am saying. I'm not saying that he intended for it to be interpreted as all women... in fact I don't believe he would do so! What I am saying is that a large percentage of Singhs HAVE interpreted as such and used it to belittle women in general. Hence why it's dangerous. And if Guru Ji knew in advance that it could cause that, why would he give us something that would essentially be equivalent to handing a murderer a gun? (since humans in general due to our nature are more likely to misuse it than use it for good). If I give a murderer a gun and tell that murderer "No you use this only for good ok? Don't misuse it!) Is it my fault at all - if the murderer goes out and shoots someone?? The facts are the no matter what the original intent was, or even if he wrote Charitropakhyan, the result of it is that many Singhs who read it ARE interpreting it as being about the female gender in general, and ARE using it as justification to place limitations and restrictions on women due to distrust and contempt...or even simply even looking down their noses at the female gender. There exists no opposite works that would put men in a bad light with women. So while even if it was 'some' women in a minority that it's talking about... it still gives the impression by the lack of equivalent writing against men, that women are in fact more immoral and deceitful than men. Tell the boys in a classroom a bunch of stories about little girls breaking little boy's hearts. But don't tell them any positive stories (or very few compared). You will have at the end a few results: 1) Little boys will think that little girls break their hearts (even if the stories only depicted certain types of girls) 2) little girls will think it's an attack on them because they know that not all little girls break all little boy's hearts 3) Both little girls and little boys in the class will automatically think that little boys do not break little girl's hearts (because there were no storied depicting little boys breaking little girl's hearts). Little boys will start to resent little girls. Little girls will feel like they were wrongly attacked. The little boys will think "we're better than little girls because we don't break their hearts while they do break ours". ---- and you won't convince then otherwise because the skewed examples used as stories, reach the subconscious mind. In fact, a psychologist read Chritropakhyan, and came to that very conclusion... psychological conditioning of the male readers such that the result is conditioned contempt and distrust toward women in general. Anyway again, I mean no disrespect. We are just talking out the effects which we all know have happened. And you can certainly see why people might question something which can cause the above effects. In general, after reading all the charters, what percentage of Singhs do you think coming out of it once they have read all of them: 1. See women in general as being immoral / unable to be trusted / deceitful (or at least moreso than they consider their own gender to be? 2. Remain neutral thinking it's only speaking about a small group / type of women? 3. Come out of reading it thinking "hey women are great, moral and spiritual beings"?? My guess (it's just a guess so no science behind this) but I would surmise that roughly 80% of Singhs come out of it with at least SOME disdain towards women that they never had prior to reading it. They may just distrust women just a little bit less than they did before... they may think in their minds just a little bit less about all the women in their life. Since very few of the chartars are about immoral men, they will likely also come out of it thinking their own gender is just that little bit higher avastha than females. Then, that breeds contempt, and it turns into Singhs voting to keep women out of certain seva etc. (because hey even if we are seen as just the teeniest bit less moral than the ones making the decisions, they will naturally think it bad for us to have those opportunities which should be filled with those who are more moral etc. So it HAS and will continue to have real repercussions for us.) I think the rest 15% occupy #2 remaining neutral. I don't think ANY Singh would come out of reading the charitars praising women or thinking higher of them compared to prior to reading them.

Yes I know we do this... but is it the physical that we are worshipping? I don't think so... I think it's still the knowledge contained within. We are treating it as such because it IS our living (in a very real way) Guru. The knowledge / truth is alive. The pages and binding and ink are not. So yes we are doing physical things to show veneration because it is the physical (sargun) manifestation of the very real nirgun formless knowledge and truth. It's not the physical entity we are venerating, we are just using physical means to do so. But in the grand scheme of things from Waheguru Ji's point of view does it matter? Many people do not have a saroop of SGGSJ in their home or live far from a Gurdwara, but they have full copy of it on their mobile or computer. When the file is closed, or the device turned off, did the knowledge disappear? Or only the means by which we were accessing it? I agree that even on mobile screens, we should be careful where we read Gurbani, is our head covered etc. Because even though it may not be a physical saroop of SGGSJ, but all of the knowledge from SGGSJ is contained in it. What is your thinking on this? Should electronic copies of SGGSJ be given same respect? It would be difficult to put a rumala on a cell phone after all. But all of the knowledge is still there, fully intact. So in your opinion, is it the physical pages and binding which make it our living Guru... or the knowledge / truth contained within it? One can be destroyed, the other can not. One will still exist even if every physical copy in the world were destroyed. Truth doesn't die. That in my opinion is why we treat it as living. Btw myself whenever I read Gurbani from my phone, I make sure to wash my hands, my head is always covered anyway because I tie a dastar... but I give it (as much as possible/practical anyway) same respect as a physical saroop.

I thought about this again and this is the irony of it all: Ultimate reality is ONEness. All else is illusion, so essentially we are all arguning over which bits of the illusion are real when the turth is that NONE of it is LOL. Also, we are creating our own reality. The 'rules' to life are not made by some separate being sitting on a cloud. The divine consciousness is within ALL OF US. Therefore, we are actually making the rules! So to say that things go this way or that way because of some divine law, I think is wrong. Waheguru is not some separate thing. The divine consciousness is here and now, and in ALL of us!! Of course, we are still stuck in the illusion so we have to make of it what we can. What is the INTENT of Gurbani? Is it a rule book for the illusion? Do this don't do that... etc? I think it surpasses this. Gurbani exists as a beacon of truth to help us dissolve the illusion and realize that ONEness. And our Guru is not the physical pages, not the ink, not the fancy rumalas, we are not worshipping a 'book'. It's the knowledge contained within it, which can never be destroyed even if the physical book is (think of recent events in Punjab. They may have destroyed the physical pages, but they could never destroy that wisdom... truth can't be destroyed!). This is why SGGSJ is venerated. It surpasses the physical. That's not to say that same truth can't be found in other granths, Sikh or otherwise. I am sure some of the same knowledge can be found in the Christian Bible, the Quran, the Talmud, etc. when one starts reading. But for me, the epicentre of that knowledge... the culmination of it, is contained fully within the one granth, Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji... if it were not, it wouldn't be deserving of the title 'Guru' would it? So I guess if Dasam Granth also contains that same knowledge then it deserves respect as well. It doesn't even matter who authored it. But this is where I find contradiction because of some of the content. And you know which parts. I don't see how what is written in that part, applies to dissolving the illusion and merging back with Creator, self realization to the divine within... And as I said, anything considered Gurbani should ultimately have intent which is positive, not negative. And even if the intent were positive somehow, but it is written as such that it's so dangerous as to be abused by MANY and for bad means (to justify mistreatment, distrust of, and contempt towards women by men) then why would it be presented in a granth that is seen by many as holding just as much importance as that which we actually venerate as 'Guru'? As Ragmaala quoted What can Guru Ji do, when his Sikhs are at fault? My answer to that is: Would you give guns to a room full of known murderers? Why not? The guns are only for protection right? What can you do if the murderers are at fault? But you basically handed them the means to carry out their carnage! Our perfect Guru, Guru Gobind Singh Ji, knowing human nature and knowing society at the time (where women were already very marganilized) would certainly have known that writing depicting women in such low and immoral light would be used to justify mistreatment, distrust of, and contempt toward them by men, even if the intent of the writing wasn't meant to. Does it mean he knowingly handed over a weapon for men to use against women? I don't think he would, as it would have undermined what all the previous Gurus taught about male / female and equality and I don't think Guru Gobind Singh Ji thought of women as lowly (but admittedly that is my personal view - who knows, maybe I'm wrong and he did see us as generally bad?). All I know is the practical outcome of it... vast majority of women are not like those stories at all... yet many "Singhs" who have read DG now have opinion of women as generally being lower spiritually, morally etc than them because of it. Some to the point of calling us not even fully human and a 'downgrade to men' (I won't mention names here because I am trying to express this without causing any more kacheras to be in a bunch). Chatanga1: I missed your post because honestly I have you blocked. I saw your post only now at work. To answer your question, Sikh Khoj's post was not the first time I saw mention about the names Ram and Shyam, and how they very coincidentally match names of court poets. I guess the question is (aside from the above reasons) if Guru Gobind Singh Ji did write Charitropakhyan, why use pen names (especially ones that were already associated with known court poets)? Why not sign his own name? He was the Guru after all! Why would he need to hide behind pen names? And I don't mean that in disrespect... but it's an honest question. Why wouldn't the Guru write something and use his actual identity? Wouldn't he have known that using aliases would create this very debate? Since I don't fall completely in Camp A OR B, I am trying to look with an open mind at ALL of the issues, did he or did he not write it, if he did what was the intended consequences of it? Are people just misinterpreting it to misuse it to cause harm to image of women and if so, did Guru Ji antitipate that would happen (I'm sure he would have) and if so, did he care about what would happen to women as a result? (like I said, putting the gun in the hands of murderers analogy). I am sorry that Waheguru Ji made me to analyze things. Right from childhood I asked questions (to better understand the world around me). When I would ask "why is/does insert any question here", I was never satisfied with the answer being "....because it is/does". This drive led me to quantum physics... trying to understand reality, to fulfill this deep seated need to just KNOW the nature of existence. Why do things work they way they do? Why does society do this or that? Why do we as humans tend to want to place limits on others or control them? My questions led me to discovering that the divine light is in everyone and that WE create this existence. WE can effect change... it's not up to some sky daddy sitting on a cloud. God is HERE and NOW in ALL of us! Yes this includes, equality of caste, colour, GENDER, rich/poor, ethnicity, language, disability, and any other distinctions we think we must uphold. Its up to US as ONE race to change. To Love. For this reason I can not argue anymore with you guys. If you find this same truth in Dasam Granth then that's good. But if you use it for evil like using it as justification to limit, to cause contempt etc (and in particular towards women), then I think you have missed the mark and I will pray for you. But I don't see why the actual authorship matters in the grand scheme of things... except as Bhagat Singh Ji said earlier, to know the reasons WHY things were written, what was the mindset of Guru Ji? etc. That's how it matters. But as for totality... the FULL truth is already contained within Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, or else it would not be worthy to be our Guru if it were not 'Complete' knowledge. Sorry for the long post.

LOL Are you saying that its not possible to find all the truth I require in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji?? IN fact that's what I am saying... I don't know enough about the history etc to make a decision one way or the other. My only doubt is in whether Guru Ji would intentionally write something with the intent of it being used to cause degradation of women by men. So if he did write it, then that could not have been the intent. But then, surely a being as perfect as our Guru, would know that even if that was not the intent, it could be used as such, which would undermine much of what all of the previous Gurus taught about women hence its danger. The fact that it IS used by many "singhs" to justify bad treatment of women, is not in debate. We all know it's true. I've experienced it first hand when a "singh" told me that everything in DG was coming true and that women are not to be trusted and are immoral (and that I should marry him lest my soul be dammed). So my doubt is centred on the intent of the writing. And if the intent was to cause men to have contempt towards women, then I can not believe our Guru Ji would write it. If that was NOT the intent, then I still have a hard time believing he would write something dangerous which he KNEW would cause males to hold females in contempt and with distrust. (Why write something knowing that it had potential to cause more harm than good?) Unless this is really how he thought about us... which I flat out refuse to believe. So even if I surrender as you say, and say to myself ok believe these people who say he wrote it then I am left with what was the INTENT, and did he intend for women to be distrusted and held in contempt by men, or did he just not care about women enough that it would matter to him if it would be used as such? So the question really in my mind comes down to: Did Guru Gobind Singh Ji look down on the female gender? Certainly a Guru, who is fully ONE with Creator, would not hold one human soul above another?? But, it really matters to me as a soul. Do I matter? Or because I am female do I not matter to our Gurus? So it's a very complicated reason why I have doubts. Trust me though, I make a good chess player! Maybe we can somehow play sometime ;)

Exactly we should just allow all humans to have all opportunity without discrimination at all... Since we are all ONE. If everyone recognized it there would be no problems. We'd all work together and nobody would be trying to limit others.

Hmm my point wasn't to get u going but rather that people can have different views on things and still be friends... Sorry... People getting so hung up on one side or the other and going to war with someone who doesn't believe the exact same things they do. This is not humanity. Remember we are all actually ONE. Nobody will have 100% same beliefs as you but is that reason to get your kachera in a bunch?? if we as humans were never meant to challenge anything or ask questions then a LOT of people in history could have pulled the wool over our eyes. Having doubts sometimes can be beneficial to finding truth. Problem is if someone has that trait... To challenge Things to want to know for sure... They can't just turn it off. It usually applies to everything. Why is the sky blue? Why exactly DO we wear a Kara? Why is red bad? Can we be 100% sure that he did author all of DG? I'm sorry questioning things is exactly how Waheguru Ji made me. I'm not wired to just follow the pack or believe something because someone else said so... No matter who they are. I'm sorry if u think that makes me a horrible person. I'm still in the middle group... whats funny is from point of view of Waheguru is only ONEness. All else is illusion. Here we are trapped in the illusion arguing over which bits of it are real or not. The only things which are real are truth... Truth contained in Gurbani. We are told our Guru is SGGSJ not because of its pages or even its authorship but because of the truth it contains. Similarly the human Gurus were not Guru because of their physical bodies. It was the truth they contained. (Much to dismay of some who like pointing out their maleness as a reason to put women down). That same truth can be found by others, even written in books from other religions. If you can find that same truth in DG then all the power to you. ...if I find it contained within SGGSJ only please let me be. I don't need another Guru.

Yes did post lies on Facebook from this site... lies posted about various members of Maritime Sikh Society, posted by Chatanga1. Those people had a right to know they were being subject to libel defamation of character... as was I. To this day Chatanga1 has never apologized for sending me unsolicited and rude PMs trying to get me to leave the forum, and then got all hissy about it (calling me a liar to this day) because I posted those PMs publicly thereby exposing his antics. I still have them saved if anyone feels like reading them (and you can decide for yourself if he was trying to goad me into leaving or not). WJKK WJKF, As for Dasam Granth. There are from what I can see about equal number on both sides of the argument and also some in bewteen... those that blindly believe because that's what they were told and that's good enough to be cannon and anything anyone says is considered blaspheme. The other half do not generally doubt that *some* of DG is authentically from Guru Gobind Singh Ji, but hold question marks over other parts. The granth as a fully compiled work was assembled after the death of Guru Gobind Singh Ji. So it *could* be that some was authentically works of Guru Gobind Sing Ji while some might have been works that were merely in his possession etc. The second group maintain a "reserve judgement" attitude on these parts while revering the works that are considered authentic. The other extreme are those who believe that DG was introduced by others as a means to distract or bring in Brahminical ideology into Sikhi and cause confusion and this group do not believe in any way shape or form that these works are from Guru Gobind Singh Ji. I believe Nirmalas were the ones implicated... I know many of you think I fall in that last group. I do not. I have always said I believe banis like jaap, savayie etc are authentic. The others, though I have tried to understand what the meaning might be in a positive light I can not find any positive (particularly about female gender). Because of that I have always said that though I can't say either way if it is or is not authentic (I do not have the history background to make the judgement either way) but what I have ALWAYS maintained is that I can not see Guru Gobind Singh Ji INTENTIONALLY writing something that could be so dangerous as to be used as justification for "Singhs" to subordinate, distrust, and treat women badly. Since I believe our Gurus were perfect beings, then it would be impossible for him to accidentally write something that could be so dangerous as to cause that damage - psychologically breeding contempt in the minds of men towards women. And the fact that it has been used as such, is not even up for debate because we all know it's true. There are many "Singhs" who quote stories from Charitropakhyan, as justification to show how women are beneath men morally, spiritually etc. This is why I am in the middle ground. It causes a paradox: If he DID write it, he did so knowing that it could be so dangerous as to cause many male readers to harbour total contempt towards females. Even if that was not the intent of it, he had to have known it could cause that outcome. So because I am in the middle ground, many of you have called me 'Nindak' etc. I don't really care anymore. I believe that Waheguru Ji gave us brains to be discerning. And I believe that Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji encourages us to use them. And that brings me to my last point. The fact that Guruship was passed to Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji alone... To suggest that Sikhs "require" another granth, is to make statement that Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is somehow incomplete. If we were told by the tenth master himself, that SGGSJ is to be our ONLY Guru, and is complete and has everything a Sikh would require in the way of knowledge and wisdom, then how can we require also another granth along with it? Or two..?? Even if it is fully authentic works of Guru Gobind Singh Ji, we still shouldn't "require" any more than Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji and all else should come secondary. All the Rehet Maryadas are in concurrence on this. There is to be no other granth held on equal level to Guru Granth Sahib Ji, or bowed to as your Guru. Even Damdami Taksal's Rehet Maryada states this. So, for me, I will focus on Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. I don't want to fight with you guys anymore (unless its about subordinating women LOL) So if you find spiritual guidance in Dasam Granth then fine... please read it. As long as you find only GOOD from it. Please don't use it as means to treat women badly is all I ask. Vast majority of us are NOTHING like what those stories say. For me though I will stick to Guru Granth Sahib Ji and I am fully confident that ALL the knowledge I will ever need in this life, is contained in our only living Guru. So why can't we just "agree to disagree' so to speak? Is it really THAT big a deal? As long as we ALL follow SGGSJ it shouldn't be... Peace

I was going to suggest the jar difference... maybe the others are allowing some air in while the different jar seals better or something?

I actually ordered some stuff from them before... some of the 1" adjustable gatras. Was looking at some books too... But are they just a store? Or do they do other things?

http://www.sachasaudakhalsa.com/

So what you are saying is I shouldn't give them donation? What about Sahca Sauda Gurmat Parchar Society?

Oh they are not like those I see online posting Gurbani in a very atheistic interpretation? Like they interpret reincarnation / transmigration as only states of mind??

Really??? I never saw anything about that lol I'll have to look for it on their site now haha. I can say simran especially when I did in samagam at Amrit vela was the most powerful thing I have felt!!!!

How is what they are doing anti-Gurmat? They seem to stress Sikh Rehet Maryada, SGGSJ, etc. I can't see anything on their site that looks anti-Gurmat.... did I miss something? Also, they seem to be associated with Singh Sabha International... so its not just Canadian. Also I found another in Ontario... Sacha Sauda Gurmat Parchar Society.

The only reason I know about them is that I have a cd by someone who is neeldhari... He is pretty well known actually.. http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Neeldhari_Panth This is the one I am talking about:

But what I meant is DDT has their own rules, their own rehet maryada, etc. and operate their own Gurdwaras. So do AKJ, so does 3HO etc. Is Singh Sabha like that or are they just an organization which does parchar and spread info?? And actually DDT members many of them seem to have respect for AKJ especially how they do simran. So your remarks are kind of disrespectful to AKJ. Plus, DDT that exists today is not necessarily the very same DDT that existed to begin with. Even if the lineage has never been broken (has it?) the current way it's run may be completely different than was originally done. Just saying they are a 'group' of Sikhs with a similar set of rules etc. same as AKJ, 3HO etc. unless the word Jatha has a different meaning, I thought it meant group?? Is Singh Sabha like that, or are they just an organization that exists outside of that??

Just wondering is Singh Sabha Canada a "jatha" or sect like AKJ, DDT etc? Or are they specifically a group that does parchar etc but does not have their own gurdwaras etc? I see their name mentioned a lot here in Canada.

Ahhhh but if a husband nags his wife to do something, according to Bhagat Singh Ji she is expected to obey. She doesn't have the option to just be quiet. That's what men need apparently... if women to obey them in everything. So her ability to exercise her free will is gone in that scenario. And for any woman to willingly put themselves in that position, they are seriously in a vulnerable position. The balance is very very very fine line. It would behoove the husband not to demand at all, because it would be so easy to step over that line to taking advantage or even abuse. Demanding sammiches yes is overstepping. In the case I mentioned above... many men see it as no big deal for a woman to take their ejaculate in their mouths. They say no big deal it's not like its poison. So to him it was not abuse... to her it most definitely put her in a bad situation. She loves her husband, but feels like a prisoner. The reason she was trapped and could not do anything? The Christian hard core teaching of wifely submission... she was goaded by the Church.

My point is that NEITHER should be in subordinate position. And wanting dresses and jewellery is NOT what we as Singhnis should be focusing on. I don't wear any jewellery (aside from my wedding day which was given by my Mother in Law). In fact I do not demand anything from my husband. And he does not demand anything from me. Yes marriage can work like this!!! And the fallacy in your argument is that he can demand a 'sammich, while she is expected to 'obey' and make it for him while the decision to buy gifts is entirely up to him. Me, I HATE cooking. I don't mind cold stuff like salads but HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE cooking. Best gift my husband could give me is a domestic help to do the cooking and cleaning. Or for him to do equal share to remove some of the burden. But I really don't know how to cook either so I doubt he would want anything I'd cook anyway (usually microwave premade forzen stuff). And no I did not say he would abuse his wife... I wasnt even talking about abuse... I said I hope that if a woman lays down her entire will and chains herself into subordinate position of 'obedience' beneath him that I HOPE he would never take advantage because giving up your will completely and totally to the will of another like that is probably the most difficult thing any human can do for another. You are basically giving up ALL of your own hopes, desires, wishes, and your very will and freedom, so that he can have his way, his wishes, his desires etc. all the time. If someone does do that, gives up her will completely, so he can have his way in all things all the time... then he should NEVER EVER take advantage of that. And barking orders like making sammiches etc would definitely be seen as taking advantage.

In marriage especially however this "obedience" thing has to go.... unless it's a two way street where both are obedient to each other. Otherwise anything she gets will ALWAYS be HIS prerogative... and never the other way around. Don't you get it doesn't matter if he *usually* puts her first. It's the very fact that any freedom or control she has is ENTIRELY dependent on how much he's willing to loosen her chains!!! So even if he treats her like a queen... she is STILL IN THE SUBORDINATE POSITION. Just being in the subordinate position is DEGRADING AND DEMEANING. No matter how many gifts you give someone, or treat them well, if you look DOWN on them as being BENEATH you, then it sucks for them!!! What I am talking about are those who say the husband is in AUTHORITY over his wife. That HE gets to make all the decisions. What I am talking about, is that decisions should be made equally between them so that BOTH of their needs, desires etc are met. So she won't be a subordinate. Case in point: Lets say a family has only one television, and her favourite show is on at the same time as the big game he wanted to see. In a marriage where the male is considered leader and authority and has the last say and she is to be 'obedient' how often do you think she will get to see her show? VAST majority of men would keep the football on. Don't even deny it!!!!! So you are saying it's HER duty to put him before herself. Okay so she does... but then as I said, its always his needs being met and not hers. But this is even petty example... but these petty things add up. If everything is always HIS way and HIS advantage and HIS prerogative, at the expense of hers, then she becomes smothered and in chains. Your idea of 'cooperative is he leads she follows unquestioningly' how is that fair??? As for pregnancy, MAJORITY of women now work, and have maternity leave. Or like here in Canada, the father and mother can actually SPLIT THE PATERNITY / MATERNITY leave! So the wife is NOT dependent on the husband at all! Her own career pays for it. Just like he can also take paternity leave or they can split it between them which MANY families do! My aunt took the first half and her husband took the second half. They bottle fed so there was no need for her to be stuck to the house. They SHARED the caring of the baby. Also most women work right till the 9th month!!!! So you can't use pregnancy as an excuse! And yes that was my point about "wiles" the ONLY reason women would need to resort to that (I know a lady in a strict Christian marriage where husband has full authority) this may get a bit graphic and I apologize but he hounded her to let him ejaculate in her mouth. She resisted. He held this OBEY thing above her head... she tried it once and got physically ill (threw up) when he did. She resisted more. But he was holding out on things bought a new motorcycle for himself but wouldn't take the kids to a theme park they wanted to go to after getting good grades etc. So she used it as a bargaining chip. She told him he could ejaculate in her mouth if he took them. He agreed. Now, she degrades herself every night having to throw up after him finishing in her mouth, just so she could get something for the kids. What was the alternative? Let him buy all the toys he wanted for himself and forget about her and kids needs entirely and also 'obey' and let him ejaculate in her mouth every night?? It's complete BS to say that most men put their wives before themselves!!!! BS!!!!!! Get me a 'sammich' ring any bells? Cook me dinner, fetch my slippers, clean up my mess, get me a beer, do this do that. Submit to every demand I have in bed even if it grosses you out or causes you pain. THATS how most men are!!! Have a few extra dollars, guess what - new motorcycle for him, or tools, or a weekend away fishing with the 'boys'. Forget anything she wants. Birthdays etc? Forget a nice thoughtful gift, most men get kitchen things or things for the house and give that to their wife. How degrading! Here's your birthday gift honey, a swifer so you can clean up after me! Give me a break!!!! Actually the BEST gift a husband could EVER give his wife, is equal authority and control in the family. Allow her points to have equal weight to his! (and even then, you see how it comes down to HIM GIVING her this - so she is STILL the subordinate!!!! It's like it's inescapable!!!!!) Barring that, hiring domestic help to do all the menial housework and cooking would be a good second! And my final point.... There is a REASON why society frowns on sexual relationships between boss / employee. It's creepy and in any relationship where one has authority or power over the other, sex can never be an expression of love between them. It becomes a 'duty' for the one in the subordinate position and an 'entitlement' to the one with the authority. In boss / employer scenarios, ultimately the employee is taken advantage of (either they are doing it for a promotion or benefits etc, or the boss is demanding it for fear of witholding a promotion etc) I could never imagine marrying someone I considered my 'boss'. Creepy... yucky! And I would NEVER be able to engage in intimacy with that person!!! If you think you can without degrading your wife, then all the power to you. But I HOPE and PRAY that you NEVER EVER abuse the power she gives you if she puts herself in subordinate position. Try to imagine being the one who has to lay down her entire will, so you can have yours fulfilled and she is literally putting herself into chains beneath you and hoping that you will consider her needs as well. If you even go 1% over half way and keep choosing what YOU want, and expecting her to just obey, you are already guilty of taking advantage of her. If you can live with the knowledge that you have subjugated another human beneath you by expecting them to 'obey' and 'submit' to you, then as I said all the power to you. I could never do that from either role. My husband and I see each other as equals. And we have NEVER had an issue. He wouldn't dream of subordinating me. --- And this was just marriage... LOL. Darbar Sahib situation frustrates me to no end because I know MANY Singhnis who are better at kirtan than some of the Singhs there! Like Acapella Jatha. They have beautiful voices and can sing like no Singh ever could with a vocal range impossible for Singhs to have. It's MEN protesting the idea that they could ever do kirtan there. Why? What about Palki Sahib Seva? Chaur Sahib Seva? Washing sanctum sanctorum? Seva cleaning the sarovar? How about Granthi there? why not ever have a female Granthi there??? Why are all the kathas there done by men?? I won't even get into Panj Pyaras because I know how you feel on that already. And granted most Gurdwaras don't place these restrictions... but certainly Darbar Sahib as the most prominent Sikh holy place, should set the example!!!???? But it's MEN who oppose it. And those MEN hold the control. Why not form a 50/50 panel of Sikh men and women, and then vote on it??

If any female feels the need to cry at criticism, a year in the military will cure that. In fact, even just basic training (boot camp) will cure them of it. As for sciences / medicine etc. I say leave it up to merit. Plenty of women are getting higher grades than men and making their marks in the sciences and topping their fields. All jobs should just be left based on one's merits.